|
Work progress 0.97
|
|
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Monday, 01.10.2012, 18:32 | Message # 76 |
 Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (SpaceEngineer) A small question: shoud I disable "Real planet brightness" in the Solar System Browser? I.e. make planets previews to have uniform brightness?
I think it should be removed completely until it is revised. Real planet brightness does not produce a more realistic appearance (except for VERY dim worlds) nor does it enhance the visuals in an aesthetic sense. With autoexposure on, any real planet brightness feature should not affect the exposure of a planet until its sun's apparent magnitude is dimmer than perhaps -11 or so (which for probably 99% of worlds in SE it never will be).
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
Edited by HarbingerDawn - Monday, 01.10.2012, 18:33 |
| |
| |
| Salvo | Date: Monday, 01.10.2012, 21:01 | Message # 77 |
 Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
| I don't like so much this effect of Real Sun Brightness, bright stars looks "square", could i fix it somehow?
The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.
CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs
(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
Edited by Salvo - Monday, 01.10.2012, 21:02 |
| |
| |
| apenpaap | Date: Monday, 01.10.2012, 21:17 | Message # 78 |
 World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
| Turning bloom off or to a lower level stops the square blue stars, though it also makes all stars look like sharply edged discs.
I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
|
| |
| |
| Salvo | Date: Tuesday, 02.10.2012, 16:27 | Message # 79 |
|
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
| Quote (apenpaap) Turning bloom off or to a lower level
I was using it at max xD
The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.
CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs
(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
|
| |
| |
| Hasforjs97 | Date: Tuesday, 02.10.2012, 19:48 | Message # 80 |
 Space Pilot
Group: Translators
Spain
Messages: 107
Status: Offline
| Quote (Salvo) I was using it at max xD
I have it at max too, because it often acts as antialiasing, for example if you look at the sunset the bloom makes it look more blurry like some kind of fake FOV and also it makes the mountains to not be so scaled, so since there isn't antialiasing in the landscape yet, the bloom is a good setting I think.
My desktop:
Pentium G3260 @ 3.30GHz
8.0 GB DDR3
AMD Radeon HD 5570 1GB
|
| |
| |
| mustafa2812 | Date: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 07:45 | Message # 81 |
 Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 121
Status: Offline
| Although I understand how looking at the solar system browser and seeing a bunch of black nothing orbs to represent far away planets is unhelpful, I do think that knowing the light situation of a star system is. For example, when I look at a star and browse it's planets, i may want to skip the system all together if it's just a bunch of ridiculousness bright planets or pitch black planets. I also might want to find the range of light for the shot I want. Say I want a desert planet that is really bright, id like to know how bright the planet is before I travel to it and get surprised. People who don't like real planet brightness can just switch it off and that will change the F2 menu around as well, which is preferable. So I say either include real planet brightness or dont, but don't split the difference and make it confusing in the F2 menu cause thats just worse in my opinion. At least at the moment it gives us a quick and accurate preview of what's there, which is really what it's for.
PC specs: Windows 7 64 bit. Intel Core i5-2400 quad-core (3.1GHz, 6MB Cache). 6GB DDR3-1333MGz SDRAM[2 DIMMs]. 1 TB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive. 3GB DDR3 NVIDIA GeForce GT 545.
Edited by mustafa2812 - Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 08:03 |
| |
| |
| SpaceEngineer | Date: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 08:45 | Message # 82 |
 Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4800
Status: Offline
| Quote (Hasforjs97) so since there isn't antialiasing in the landscape yet
What? I added FXAA in the 0.9.6.2 patch!
|
| |
| |
| werdnaforever | Date: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 11:18 | Message # 83 |
 World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 897
Status: Offline
| Quote (mustafa2812) People who don't like real planet brightness can just switch it off and that will change the F2 menu around as well, which is preferable.
So true. I couldn't have said it better myself!
Quote (HarbingerDawn) I think it should be removed completely until it is revised.
I hope you're not referring to removing real planet brightness altogether?  You're only suggesting changing the menu, right?
|
| |
| |
| AlessiaCristallooo | Date: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 14:23 | Message # 84 |
 Astronaut
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 44
Status: Offline
| Quote (SpaceEngineer) Fixed a bug with "intergalactic" mode of spaceships in certain regions of Milky Way
This mean that spaceships will be visible even ouside a system??  :D
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 14:40 | Message # 85 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (werdnaforever) I hope you're not referring to removing real planet brightness altogether?
I am suggesting removing real planet brightness altogether, and my reasons for it were given in that same post.
The effects of Real planet brightness would be better served by a more developed autoexposure feature (one that affected exposure of planets in addition to stars). There could be a few different settings for auto exposure in this case: one where priority was placed on exposing the planet properly (star exposure would be altered to accommodate this; this is similar to how autoexposure works currently); one where priority was placed on exposing the stars properly (planet exposure would be altered to accommodate this; this is similar to using real planet brightness without autoexposure currently, expect that almost every planet would be EXTREMELY overexposed in a system like Sol).
Then there could be a sort of "max realism option" which would be like a hybrid between the two - planet exposure would be given priority until reaching a certain maximum brightness where the human eye could no longer adapt, in which case the planets would start looking overexposed, and in the other direction the planets would start getting underexposed when the star exposure reached normal unaltered levels. This would produce a visual effect similar to real planet brightness currently, just applied in a manner that actually makes sense and looks nice and tells you something about the actual condition of the worlds.
This is what real planet brightness/autoexposure should really be. Presently it just tells you about the relative lighting levels on each world, but since eyes and cameras can adapt (at least to a point) this is largely irrelevant and so it is really only of interest in the solar system browser. If you were orbiting Uranus in reality your eyes would not be straining to find the planet, it would be more than bright enough for you to observe.
Quote (AlessiaCristallooo) This mean that spaceships will be visible even ouside a system??
No. There was a bug where in some systems in the Milky Way a spacecraft would be considered "intergalactic" because of being closer to Sag DEG than to Milky Way core, so it would not display at all even if in a system. SpaceEngineer has fixed that so now it will display in systems in that part of the galaxy.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
Edited by HarbingerDawn - Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 14:57 |
| |
| |
| AlessiaCristallooo | Date: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 14:48 | Message # 86 |
|
Astronaut
Group: Users
Italy
Messages: 44
Status: Offline
|
Damn, I hope he will fix this bug someday
|
| |
| |
| smjjames | Date: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 16:00 | Message # 87 |
|
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
| Quote (AlessiaCristallooo) Quote (HarbingerDawn)
No.
Damn, I hope he will fix this bug someday biggrin
Not like you're going to see much other than whatever lights the starship has in interstellar space because there isn't enough sunlight to illuminate it. So at best, all you would see is a silhouette against the stars with whatever lights the starship has.
As for the planetary brightness, I kind of like it (except when it's so close to its primary that the surface is blazing white), so I don't think it should neccesarily be removed entirely because there is an option to turn it on or off.
Anyways, yeah, the autoexposure needs some work because there was one point where it couldn't decide what to autoexpose, the background, or the planet.
Edited by smjjames - Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 16:02 |
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 17:19 | Message # 88 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote (smjjames) the autoexposure needs some work because there was one point where it couldn't decide what to autoexpose, the background, or the planet.
Autoexposure only affects the stars, never the planet.
Quote (smjjames) so I don't think it should neccesarily be removed entirely because there is an option to turn it on or off.
I understand keeping it as an option, and usually I'm all for that, but in this particular case I question whether keeping it at all is doing more harm than good? As I have said before, it is entirely unrealistic, potentially misleading, and (imo) aesthetically displeasing. Regardless of whether it stays or not, the idea needs to be entirely reworked and integrated with autoexposure. As it is at present it provides a useful comparison of the amount of illumination each planet receives, but other than that it serves no purpose (i.e. adds neither realism nor eye candy).
EDIT: 1500 posts... I feel old 
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
Edited by HarbingerDawn - Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 17:20 |
| |
| |
| smjjames | Date: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 17:29 | Message # 89 |
|
World Builder
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 913
Status: Offline
| Quote (HarbingerDawn) Quote (smjjames)
the autoexposure needs some work because there was one point where it couldn't decide what to autoexpose, the background, or the planet.
Autoexposure only affects the stars, never the planet.
Well, it just seemed like it couldn't decide whether the focus was the planet or the background. I have no idea what was going on with it at that moment.
|
| |
| |
| apenpaap | Date: Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 17:54 | Message # 90 |
|
World Builder
Group: Users
Antarctica
Messages: 1063
Status: Offline
| Personally, I couldn't disagree more; I think the real planet brightness is gorgeous, and much more realistic than having bright blue sky ice worlds, fierce orange titans, and hot Jupiters looking just as bright as normal gas giants. Neptune isn't nearly as brightly lit as Earth, after all. I think the problem lies in auto-exposure not actually changing the exposure, but the magnitude-limit.
I occasionally stream at http://www.twitch.tv/magistermystax. Sometimes SE, sometimes other games.
Edited by apenpaap - Wednesday, 03.10.2012, 17:54 |
| |
| |
ENG
New site
United States 
Italy 
Antarctica 
Spain 
Russian Federation 
Pirate